ISTAT: Randy Tinseth: pax traffic going from 3bn today to 7bn by 2033

Randy Tinseth, VP Marketing of Boeing, presented today to the ISTAT conference. Here is a synopsized summary of his comments.

Quality of Boeing customers in the backlog is second to none.

Passenger traffic is growing about 6%, twice that of world economy. Cargo market coming back, saw 5% growth last year, equal to about 10 777Fs or 747-8Fs.

I agree with John Leahy: order bubble? What bubble. Everything tells us demand is strong in the market. On track to delivery 750-775 aircraft this year.

Going from 3bn passengers worldwide this year to 7bn in 2033.

Single aisle aircraft being driven by growth in developing market and LCCs.

The heart of the widebody market is around the 787 and 777. There is a market for big airplanes, but relatively small. The Very Large Aircraft market has underperformed our expectations, too.

Last year added 25 new customers to MAX backlog. The 737 MAX is absolutely the best new airplane launch we’ve ever had. Evenly split the market with A320neo once launched. (Tinseth shows a slide that shows MAX with about 100 more orders.)

The 737-9 is smaller than the A320neo but has lower trip costs so better costs. 737-9 with two aux fuel tanks vs A321LR give 3,900nm range.

The replacement of the 757 is already done: enough 737-9s and A321s have already been ordered to replace the 500 757s already flying. Only 50-80 757s on 757 >3,000nm.

We’re not looking at “757 replacement,” we’re looking at the space between the 757 and 787. Customers interested in an airplane bigger than 757 and can fly 20% further.

We believe long-term 737 MAX 200 will be a real winner in the market for LCCs.

Today the 787 is flying an average of 12 hrs a day at better than 98% dispatch reliability.

I think this year will be the year of the 787-10. Today have 142 orders and commitments. Simple stretch covers >90% of the global twin aisle routes. 25%-30% more efficient than A330ceo, 10% more efficient than A350.

We’ve been working on the bridge for the 777 Classic to the 777X. In 3Q2016 will begin delivering aircraft with 2% better block fuel, 14 more seats on the -300ER; 2% also for 777F. 1% airframe improvement, 1/2% on engine, removing 1,200 lbs from the airplane.

Says 777-8 has slightly better fuel efficiency per passengers and 1,500nm more than A350-1000.

747-8 has the cargo advantage because of the freighter design advantage.

Tinseth puts big question marks over the A380 and A350-1000 in the Airbus widebody strategy.

Growth in the VLA market is all about risk-reward and airlines are risk adverse. Delays hurt 747-8. A380 is simply too big.

777 Classic in 2017, look at options, confident of 2017. When we get to 2018, we’ll handle it. It is our objective and our belief that we will get the orders.

So, if there is an world economic contract/recession, the air traffic should be slashed at double the rate of the negative GDP?

It’s all bogus assumptions based on bogus GDP numbers, especially from China.

Someone ought to ask Tinseth about the dearth of 777X orders outside the launch orders, and how Improving the 777 classic might suppress those orders. Nobody seems nervous about that. They should be.

They ought to further inquire, that given 18 month lead times on some components, how Boeing thinks it has six years to cover the production gap, and just what the “feathering” of the production on the two models will look like.

You are ringt. Either an A322 with 3+3 seating or a Boeing New Light and Narrow Twin (797) with 2+4+2 seating is the missing link.

A 240 pax 4500nm plane kind of need around 40 -50 k thrust and be able to take 10 000 cycles min on wing. No such engine is available today. Maybe PWA can gear its PW1100G to a PW1042G and deliver the economy sought after? Boeing could breed a cross between the 737MAX as father and 787-9 as mother for a UAL 797 offering.

So the missing link in the portfolio of Boeing/Airbus could be the space between the 757 and 787 or the 321 and 330/350.
How about reviving a A310 style plane with a lightweight fuselage,new wing and latest engine technology.Reduced galley space in the inside,thinned isolation for partly 9 abreast,space flex lavs for skinny air passengers and protective underwear with maximum capacity for the obese.Ideal for short and medium haul.Airbus could bring it to market when the 330neo sales starts to fade.

some airline could make billions setting up a 737-9 only airline flying point to point with all endpoints being decommissioned B-36/B-52/KC-135 bases… lots and lots of 12,000 foot runways in “underserved” locations…

you could make tons of money flying people from remote northern tier SAC bases like Loring ME, Selfridge MI and Malmstrom MT to places like RAF Sculthorpe and 1 stopping to Misawa Japan (in the center of the radioactive tsunami zone) by way of Eilson in AK.

Agree 20% more range then 321LR/757 seems the right range for reliable TATL operations. Looking at something bigger then A321 seems born out of realism, knowing an additional 1300 A321CEO/NEO/LR’s will roll of the line before 2020 is over.

I think that after a 2 year lead the MAX is doing just fine. Just so that there is no confusion. Unidentified is a customer who wishes not to reveal its identity. Undisclosed is an anomaly that an European Aerospace company uses to mask orders that will likely never be fulfilled. (Kingfisher, HNA group) The unidentified’s are likely the doing of the slothful Chinese who only reveal their orders after gvt approval. Ie the 77W’s that were unidentified for almost 2 years. Pump the brakes on being unimpressed ….

….. When the A380 accomplishes 1000 orders, then your comments might hold weight. But as of right now, right stinkin’ meow, you have an airplane that has a prototype engine from RR that is too heavy for the liking of Airbus, (1) customer who wants the NEO built and to compound the whole equation is today’s admission of Airbus that they will NOT build it for just (1) customer. Still there?

These comparisons really make me laugh lol. All of these carriers are NOT replacing 747’s for A380’s and A350’s for 777’s. Most of these carriers are operators of T7’s and A350’s and hold your seat….. LH and KE will be operating the 747 and the A380 together???? Somewhere out there a pig grew wings and is now airborne.

When the NEO resolves it’s “issues” and when the LR can do a 757 mission without playing shell games with auxiliary fuel tanks and pick up customers other than lessors , I’m game to listen. Good day.

“Unidentified is a customer who wishes not to reveal its identity. Undisclosed is an anomaly that an European Aerospace company uses”

Nope. Unidentified and Undisclosed are two terms for exactly the same thing. Boeing uses the former term, Airbus the latter.
Kingfisher frames were not moved to “Undisclosed”, they were cancelled outright, in the case of the A380 by Airbus themselves.
Yes, Hong Kong Airlines’ A380 order was moved to “Undisclosed”, for reasons unknown. So what’s going to happen to those is anyone’s guess.
If you have any documents proving that it’s just an accounting trick to fool investors, please do share them with us.

“Those comparisons really make me laugh lol. All of these carriers are NOT replacing 747’s for A380’s and A350’s for 777’s” ”

…except that wasn’t at all what keesje was claiming. He was taking issue with Tinseth implying Airbus’ customer base was second rate.

“When the NEO resolves it’s “issues” ”

Assuming you mean the A320neo, what issues?

“and when the LR can do a 757 mission without playing shell games with auxiliary fuel tanks and pick up customers other than lessors , I’m game to listen.”

Maybe the issues he refers to are issues United has with the published performance figures for the A321 NEO which prevent or hinder United from using it in their network. After all, everybody knows the A321 NEO is no 1:1 replacement for the 757 and Mr. Rainey clearly states that the 757 has a particular sweet spot for them.

“Issues”: Oh, I see. Yeah, in the specific context of the LR as 757 replacement somebody says it has unidentified (tee-hee) issues. An explanation of which is given by Aero Ninja and Uwe below.
You rephrase that in your original post to make it seem like general issues of the A320neo as such. Right…

Kingfisher:
The A380 orders are gone. Some A320 and A330 orders remain on the books, but listed under Kingfisher, not under that “Undisclosed” cloak you claim is used to hide all the unpleasant orders.

Wow. That was both entertaining and informative. This part:
“When the NEO resolves it’s “issues” and when the LR can do a 757 mission without playing shell games with auxiliary fuel tanks…” had me laughing out loud.

Over on “another site”, like here, we have people basically proclaiming the A321NeoLR will outperform the 757, cure cancer, and rescue puppies from being kicked by evil people. All at the same time.

Did you see what Steven UH said about the Boeing approach? Also think Randy has a little bit of cred about understanding the tea leaves of the market. I fail to see why you have an issue with him calling the other supplier’s customers second tier. Although everyone buys everyones frames it might be hard to classify anyone anything. As for “unknown”, you have agreed with many who say that many of those sales are for China.

So Mr. Marketing Man for Airbus share your thoughts on this one. Why has John Leahy been spouting about A330CEO sales in the 300s from China if he has a need for only 80 odd units? Could it be that the 80 odd are not firm and many of those 80 odd are now interested in getting better deals and moving to the NEO?

Randy and his PR minions are propping up a house of cards.
The number of cards that can be sacrificed before the whole things cascades down into shambles is limited.
See, Boeing is a Shareholder Value Management Venue that also builds airplanes ( and some other stuff ).

There you go again with those comments that undervalue your practice. Boeing is not a house of cards as is Airbus not a house of cards. People are buying the stock of BA and the price continues to improve. Focus on your core abilities which is not satire.

I thought that was an interesting statement as well. The A380 suffered much more dramatic delays than the 747-8, but Boeing wasn’t able to capitalise on the A380’s issues at all. As for being too big – so Tinseth predicts more than a doubling of worldwide pax traffic in less than 20 years and says the A380 is too big, all in the same presentation.

As for MAX vs NEO: MAX is doing great – why still play silly number games to show that everybody in the audience are just that?
But marketing is a strange world indeed – I’ve seen marketing guys plough on with a particular BS spin despite audible groans (and sometimes open rejection) from the audience. Was that particular pitch changed for the next presentation/customers? You bet it wasn’t.

Because people like you need the red meat!!! If you know the game why are you so caught up in it? John does the same thing and he makes crazy comments about his program just as much as Randy. Here’s what you need to know, as soon as either of them pull the trigger on a single aisle, current sales are out the window. And, as long as fuel prices are low, sales for both will move to the right. Also, the market can change just as quickly as it is going up and all this backlog becomes a moot point. They both play to the market and use what noise maker than can to get people interested. SO groan and find another story to read.

It may look as if Emirates is planning to have as many as 500 A380s in operation at the same time, perhaps as early as the mid 2030s. The new Al Maktoum International Airport at Dubai World Central (DWC) will eventually have 10 times as many contact stands for the A380 than what’s available at the giant Concourse A at Dubai International Airport (DXB): 200 vs. 20. Thus it may seem as if the reports of the early death of the A380 are greatly exaggerated.

Quick Facts about the Expansion Project

• Five parallel Code F runways of 4.5 km each in length spaced wide apart in order to provide for simultaneous operation.

• Two terminal facilities on either side of the airport site, West and East, providing a capacity for over 50 million passengers in total.

• Four concourses featuring an innovative triple-plus layout 2.8 km long encompassing three nodes, each the size of 7 football fields.

• Concourses, each with 100 wide body aircraft contact stands and 65 million capacity, totaling over 220 million passengers capacity for the entire airport with over 400 wide body contact stands.

• Innovative concourse functional design aiming to raise passenger experience to new levels, never before experienced at any airport.

• A 6 track train system, connecting the airport’s two terminals with its four concourses designed in such a way, that allows the arriving and departing passengers to reach their destinations on a fast travel journey; transferring passengers to circulate between concourses in a set minimum connect time, thus enabling them to board onward connections quickly and comfortably.

• A massive 8 square km cargo facility area at the South of the airport, supported by the quick cargo transfer facilities.

A friend of mine was telling me that Emirates is planning on serving Hamburg, Germany with A380s. He is not someone I tend to doubt, even if I cannot find anything on the web about that.

Having said that, should this be accurate, it would imply quite a large A380 fleet as Hamburg is not really a heavily travelled airport and the largest aircraft flying in and out are the twice daily 777 flights fro Emirates Airlines.

Did Mr. Tinseth hint at or suggest what type of aircraft would take care off the 4 billion passenger delta over the next 18 years?

I don’t believe it helps to look at Emirates and trying to understand the reasons for its enormous growth through the narrow prism of Americentrism. Such a US-centric world tend to view the world air travel market through the American experience with the airline deregulation act of 1978 when a growing number of U.S. domestic operators could begin to compete with Pan Am in the exo-American air travel market, while the general decline of the US airline industry was further helped by short-sightedness, underfunding, and flyer-unfriendly policies — an experience that is not by any means applicable to Emirates (and Dubai) with its large comparative advantage in geography, long-sightedness and flyer-friendly policies. Hence, the rise and fall of PanAm is not applicable to Emirates.

It’s worth noting that while the management of US airlines are typically preoccupied with profits for the next quarter, the managers of Emirates seem to think more about the next quarter century.

it is a “Slow Glass” story. ( glass with very large refraction index that reduces speed of light to mm/year. Window panes are loaded by standing them in scenic places for some years. “full” windows are sold for the view to be installed in housing. )
Seems to be also attributed to Bob Shaw in some places.

The bloomberg article has a good picture of the A380 wing to body fairing, showing how much lifting area on the fairing and the underside of the wings near the fuselage. Is this fairing the ultimate solution in lift and efficiency? What if it extends farther forward, or spread aft like a wingsuit?

“Says 777-8 has slightly better fuel efficiency per passengers and 1,500nm more than A350-1000.”

I guess we’ll see once both aircraft are in service and the final numbers are in. But, since the heavy A330-neo is claiming to narrow the efficiency gap with the 787, the 777 has a CFRP wing, and versus the A350-1000, what will be the ratio of fan area to weight, and wingspan to weight? The 777-8 may be better on both which may at least make it more competitive than initially assumed by conventional wisdom.

Now, quite a few people seem to conveniently forget that the A340-300 is essentially an A330-300 (i.e. more than 90 percent common) . In fact, the A343 and A333 have significantly more common parts percentage-wise than, for example, the 777-200ER/777-300 and the 777-300ER. Compared to the first 773, the first 77W had 60 percent newer, or revised parts. Also, the A340-500 and A340-600 have significant more commonality with the A330 than what is the case with the 747-8I vs. 747-100. Since the A340 was produced on the same assembly lines as the A330, it didn’t really matter much to Airbus when the A340 was discontinued. In fact, Airbus produced more A330s in 2012, 2013 and 2014 than the combined yearly output of A330s and A340s (i.e. from 1993 through 2011). Boeing doesn’t have the same luxury with the 747-8. When the programme is eventually terminated, the assembly line is closed. Thus, it makes little sense to compare the A340 with the 747-8 production-wise.

“The 737-9 is smaller than the A320neo but has lower trip costs so better costs. 737-9 with two aux fuel tanks vs A321LR give 3,900nm range.”
The OEW of a 737-9 is about 50.000 kgs (110,200lbs) with 2 extra tanks. The MTOW is 88.314 kgs (194,700lbs). Fuel capacity (according to Boeing) goes up to 23.660 kgs ( 52,150lbs). So the -9 with 2 aux tanks could carry a payload of all of 14.650 kgs (32,300lbs).
So that is a PAYLOAD of all of 140 pax. Realistically how many routes offer yields to make money on that? A higher MTOW is highly doubtful if only for field performance reasons.

Well, according to Bjørn Fehrm, a narrowbody fuselage should be better than a small twin aisle aircraft for an overall fuselage length of less than 50m. FWIW, the fuselage length of the 757-200 is 46.97 m, while it’s 44.51 m for the A321. A 10 frame stretched A321 would be 50,1 m long and would have at least 4 extra rows of Y-class seats over that of the 757-200 (i.e. 24 seats*); or close to 13 percent higher seating capacity than the 757-200 in a two class configuration.

Now, a 10 frame stretched A321neoLR would have about the same seating capacity as the 767-200 and it would have transcon range capability. However, if there indeed is a market for a same-sized aircraft with solid transatlantic capability, then the obvious thing would be to put a new, larger wing on a same-sized derivative aircraft. Max range should IMJ be around 5000 nm. That would even allow for a further stretch, even though the fuselage fineness ratio would be less favourable. Still, it should still have much less empty weight than that of a larger diameter, small twin aisle fuselage.

In fact, a 57.3m long, double stretched A321 — stretched by 24 frames over that of the A321 — and equipped with an all new wing and MLG, would have about the same fuselage fineness ratio as the 757-300 (e.g. fuselage length of 54.43 m).

In order to over come the inherent disadvantage of such a long single aisle aircraft, such a “beast” could be configured with a single aisle between Doors 1 and 2, and a twin aisle, 5 abreast configuration aft of Doors 2L/2R — AKA HQR (by Frequent Traveller ). The cabin between doors 1L/1R and 2L/2R should be set aside for premium seating in a single aisle configuration. Aft of doors 2L/2R you would have the Y-class twin aisle 1+3+1 seating configuration. That would enable enhanced ingress/egress for Y-class, but would not waste any space on an additional aisle for business and first class — where frankly, an additional aisle would not be required.

For example, American Airlines’ A321 transcons have only 72 Y-class seats, 20 business class seats (2+2) and 10 first class seats (1+1). On this conceptual double stretched A321 (e.g. in an AA transcon configuration), business and first class seats should be located forward of doors 2L/2R, but in a single aisle configuration. Boarding would be through door 1L for premium class passengers and through Door 2L fore economy class passengers. Aft of doors 2L/2R, they could at least double the number of Y-class seats over their A321 transcons — and that even in a twin aisle configuration (1+3+1).

The 757 proved problematic on the Atlantic, with mission reliability at shockingly low levels. Even a slight headwinds cause tech stops, at a large scale. Ity seems the A321LR will have similar range, so also too low.

United no doubt wants to get rid of these disturbances and get a decent platform for Berlin-Washington, all year round and even a bit further. And teh A321LR seems far from perfect for that role..

So Boeing smells an opportunity, because intra Asia, Leusure are also big markets for such a platform. Maybe if they offer United full cooperation to pimp the 757 cabins, pay 20% of the fuel bill and introduce a power by the hour with UTC, they can convince UA te keep the 757 until a new platform becomes available.

The fuselage works for a 2 hr or 9 hr flight, but will require two separate wings. Which fuselage to pick LT6 or LT7? I predict Boeing will build LT6-2 and LT6-9, and Airbus will build LT7-9 as you have illustrated.